Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

Discussion and analysis of past events and their causes and effects.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#201  Postby Shrunk » Dec 28, 2012 4:12 pm

NineBerry wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
NineBerry wrote:So, you are okay with libel laws? Don't you think voicing the idea that the holocaust didn't happen constitutes libel against those people that suffered in the holocaust and are reporting about that?


No more than claiming Jesus did not exist is libel against those who disagree.


Those are different cases. The idea that someone is lying about being tortured or having lost relatives or friends by genocide is personally attacking the reputation of that person.


And if you make such a claim about a particular person, then that could well be libel. However, that is not the case when one is arguing generally against the historicity of the Holocaust. If I say that there is no evidence that alien life forms have ever visited earth, I would hate to think I could be sued by everyone who claims to have been abducted by aliens.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 59
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#202  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 28, 2012 5:16 pm

I think the prohibition of any speech other than defamatory or injurious speech is counter productive and introduces a dangerous precedent.

All speech, even hateful or inaccurate speech should be protected. The alternative is having a small group decide for you what is acceptable or what is the truth. Who wants that?
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12711
Age: 56
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#203  Postby horacerumpole » Dec 28, 2012 5:23 pm

NineBerry wrote:Yes, it is false. German's highest court has confirmed that the holocaust is a historical fact. Denying it does legally not count as an opinion. It is a factually wrong assertion.


Factually wrong assertions are still free speech. People are entitled to assert incorrect things, like the Moon Hoax.

The holocaust is a historical fact like the Roman conquest of Gaul is a historical fact. But, people should be able to deny the accuracy of the historical accounts of all or part of them.

History is not settled in courts of law.

NineBerry wrote:

Libel is not only a matter for civil courts in Germany. Libel is actually a crime and no special damage other than that to reputation must be shown.


Yeah - and in some countries one can be liable for damages in libel even if one tells the truth. Some places are bonkers.

NineBerry wrote:

The point here is: Different countries have different legal cultures and traditions. In Germany, we do criminalize hateful speech.
I know. Some places are flat out bonkers. They do that in Saudi Arabia too, and other places where negative statements about some religions are criminalized.


NineBerry wrote:
So, the law against denying nazi crimes is not a special law. It fits very well into the context of german legal culture.
I'm sure it does.

Germany is also the country that committed the holocaust, so I guess I can understand their embarrassment in having it brought up. But, nevertheless, it's a weirdly silly law that is akin to the US making it a crime to deny the official account of 9/11/01, or to deny that the attack on Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41 is to be blamed solely on the Japanese.

NineBerry wrote:

Oh: And there were individual cases of lamp shades made from human skin. It just didn't happen often, but it did happen.


No it didn't. :coffee: Well, at least no human skin lampshades were ever found. The story is basically a legend. The Nazis did other things just as horrific, but apparently not THAT particular thing. It's important to be able to talk these things through.

Doesn't mean atrocities didn't happen. But, if you legislate away denial, then it will result in legislating away the right to find the truth.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#204  Postby horacerumpole » Dec 28, 2012 5:26 pm

NineBerry wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
NineBerry wrote:So, you are okay with libel laws? Don't you think voicing the idea that the holocaust didn't happen constitutes libel against those people that suffered in the holocaust and are reporting about that?


No more than claiming Jesus did not exist is libel against those who disagree.


Those are different cases. The idea that someone is lying about being tortured or having lost relatives or friends by genocide is personally attacking the reputation of that person.


Denying the holocaust is not the same as saying a person is lying about being tortured or lost friends during World War 2.

And, calling someone a liar is not libel. Maybe some of them are lying. Maybe some are mistaken about the details of what happened. In all probability, some are. People lie about all kinds of stuff. Doesn't mean the holocaust didn't happen, of course.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#205  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 28, 2012 5:29 pm

NineBerry wrote:
horacerumpole wrote:Holocaust denial prohibitions are not only nonsensical, they are abominations to freethought, skepticism and the independence of the human mind. When enacted by a State, such prohibitions are thought policing, and a fundamental violation of the sanctity of the human mind.

Individuals have the right to hear such denials, and the right to hear such denials is fundamental to free inquiry.


Right. And laws banning defecating on a public sidewalk are abominations to freedom as well. They are bowl policing and a fundamental violation of the sanctity of the human anus.

Individuals have the right to smell such piles of shit, and the right to smell such piles of shit is fundamental to free culinary.


That is a horribly flawed comparison NineBerry.

Defecating in the street is a health hazard and can result in deadly disease epidemics. Denying the Holocaust in the street results in public debate and ultimately a reaffirmation of the horrible event. How are the two comparable?
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12711
Age: 56
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#206  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 28, 2012 5:33 pm

NineBerry wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
NineBerry wrote:So, you are okay with libel laws? Don't you think voicing the idea that the holocaust didn't happen constitutes libel against those people that suffered in the holocaust and are reporting about that?


No more than claiming Jesus did not exist is libel against those who disagree.


Those are different cases. The idea that someone is lying about being tortured or having lost relatives or friends by genocide is personally attacking the reputation of that person.


So it should be illegal to deny any claim made by another person? Can you not see how ridiculous this is?
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12711
Age: 56
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#207  Postby horacerumpole » Dec 28, 2012 6:17 pm

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
NineBerry wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
NineBerry wrote:So, you are okay with libel laws? Don't you think voicing the idea that the holocaust didn't happen constitutes libel against those people that suffered in the holocaust and are reporting about that?


No more than claiming Jesus did not exist is libel against those who disagree.


Those are different cases. The idea that someone is lying about being tortured or having lost relatives or friends by genocide is personally attacking the reputation of that person.


So it should be illegal to deny any claim made by another person? Can you not see how ridiculous this is?


I suspect it is only denials that piss a lot of people off. Denials that don't piss many people off are likely just fine.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#208  Postby horacerumpole » Dec 28, 2012 6:23 pm

One Jewish advocacy group, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, this week called the statue's placement "a senseless provocation which insults the memory of the Nazis' Jewish victims."

"As far as the Jews were concerned, Hitler's only 'prayer' was that they be wiped off the face of the earth," the group's Israel director, Efraim Zuroff, said in a statement.

However, many others are praising the artwork, saying it has a strong emotional impact. And organizers defend putting it on display in the former ghetto.

Fabio Cavallucci, director of the Center for Contemporary Art, which oversaw the installation, said, "There is no intention from the side of the artist or the center to insult Jewish memory."

"It's an artwork that tries to speak about the situation of hidden evil everywhere," he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wir ... N3i5m88CSp

Image

An Italian artist known for his satirical sculptures has been banned from advertising his newest sculpture of Adolf Hitler praying in a Milan exhibition.
http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2010/09/16 ... sculpture/

Fuck the censors. Suck it.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#209  Postby jamest » Dec 29, 2012 1:27 am

Would moon-landing denial prohibition make sense? I mean, there are still people out there who think that the moon-landings were a conspiracy. However, what sense would it make to prohibit moon-landing denial? If you can convince me that we should curtail the privilege of free-speech to those advocating such, then I'll gladly buy into the curtailment of free-speech for anyone who doesn't buy into the party-line, for anything.

What it all boils-down to, as horace has just alluded to, is that people want to curtail free-speech whenever they are offended by those who speak. Well, fuck 'em. I would rather get rid of people such as this, than the freedom to say what one wants. In any sensible nation, the truth will prevail, regardless. It's only in places where freedom-of-speech is curtailed, where truth struggles to shine.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18934
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#210  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 29, 2012 1:58 am

I do find it interesting that the Wannsee conference minutes and the Origin of Species both refer to "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest".

The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection, and would, if released, act as a seed of a new Jewish revival."


So should we ban books on Darwinism as inspiring genocide?
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#211  Postby Shrunk » Dec 30, 2012 8:48 pm

No.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 59
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#212  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 31, 2012 3:23 am

horacerumpole wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:
NineBerry wrote:
Shrunk wrote:

No more than claiming Jesus did not exist is libel against those who disagree.


Those are different cases. The idea that someone is lying about being tortured or having lost relatives or friends by genocide is personally attacking the reputation of that person.


So it should be illegal to deny any claim made by another person? Can you not see how ridiculous this is?


I suspect it is only denials that piss a lot of people off. Denials that don't piss many people off are likely just fine.


Who decides what "a lot" is? Who decides what 'pissed off' means?

You do see the inherent danger that criminalizing speech brings don't you?
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12711
Age: 56
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#213  Postby Shrunk » Dec 31, 2012 11:56 am

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
horacerumpole wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:
NineBerry wrote:

Those are different cases. The idea that someone is lying about being tortured or having lost relatives or friends by genocide is personally attacking the reputation of that person.


So it should be illegal to deny any claim made by another person? Can you not see how ridiculous this is?


I suspect it is only denials that piss a lot of people off. Denials that don't piss many people off are likely just fine.


Who decides what "a lot" is? Who decides what 'pissed off' means?

You do see the inherent danger that criminalizing speech brings don't you?


If I may be so presumptuous, I think he sees that very clearly.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 59
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#214  Postby horacerumpole » Jan 02, 2013 2:57 pm

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

I suspect it is only denials that piss a lot of people off. Denials that don't piss many people off are likely just fine.


Who decides what "a lot" is? Who decides what 'pissed off' means?

You do see the inherent danger that criminalizing speech brings don't you?[/quote]

Err...I've been vigorously arguing about that inherent danger this entire thread.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#215  Postby pinkharrier » Jan 03, 2013 7:42 am

As I have probably said before, if the denial law was any good it would have a wider application than just to genocide committed by the Nazis. That it only applies to one event makes makes the law simply self serving (whoever "self" may be).
I'm a rational skeptic. Touch wood.
User avatar
pinkharrier
 
Posts: 828

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#216  Postby horacerumpole » Jan 03, 2013 2:20 pm

pinkharrier wrote:As I have probably said before, if the denial law was any good it would have a wider application than just to genocide committed by the Nazis. That it only applies to one event makes makes the law simply self serving (whoever "self" may be).


The danger is that various groups start saying, "well, if you can't say that about the Jews, then why can't my group be protected....?" And, there is no rational basis to protect one group but not another.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#217  Postby Shrunk » Jan 03, 2013 2:28 pm

horacerumpole wrote:
pinkharrier wrote:As I have probably said before, if the denial law was any good it would have a wider application than just to genocide committed by the Nazis. That it only applies to one event makes makes the law simply self serving (whoever "self" may be).


The danger is that various groups start saying, "well, if you can't say that about the Jews, then why can't my group be protected....?" And, there is no rational basis to protect one group but not another.


That's the primary basis of my objection to such laws. If the state can determine which ideas may or may not be expressed, that decision is going to be based on which interests have political power. It should be self-evident why denying the disenfranchised the right to even express their ideas should be unacceptable in a democratic society.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 59
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#218  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 03, 2013 2:38 pm

Shrunk wrote:
horacerumpole wrote:
pinkharrier wrote:As I have probably said before, if the denial law was any good it would have a wider application than just to genocide committed by the Nazis. That it only applies to one event makes makes the law simply self serving (whoever "self" may be).


The danger is that various groups start saying, "well, if you can't say that about the Jews, then why can't my group be protected....?" And, there is no rational basis to protect one group but not another.


That's the primary basis of my objection to such laws. If the state can determine which ideas may or may not be expressed, that decision is going to be based on which interests have political power. It should be self-evident why denying the disenfranchised the right to even express their ideas should be unacceptable in a democratic society.


Is there a cottage industry in denial of other historical events? It appears to be allowed to suggest that Jesus is a mythical character. Maybe this gives a clue about the distinction between ancient and modern history. There is certainly a cottage industry in claiming that ancient history is about facts.

That, of course, leads to the whole kerfuffle about whether a 'fact' is something that most people take for granted. Otherwise, you're in the philosophy forums, filosofeazing. Funny, seeing a search for a standard relative to which to mark factuality, from people who have never seen the working side of a laboratory door. I'm not saying that only laboratory data passes a test, but clearly one needs to consider the kinds of confidence one wishes to express.

That's the primary basis of my objection to such laws.


Cue the whole song and dance about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, when there is, in fact, no fire. In court, you don't have much of a shot at re-defining 'fire'. Three cheers for anyone who thinks that holocaust denial is anything but agitation, and makes exceptions in freedoms of expression.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30753
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#219  Postby horacerumpole » Jan 03, 2013 3:12 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:

Is there a cottage industry in denial of other historical events? It appears to be allowed to suggest that Jesus is a mythical character. Maybe this gives a clue about the distinction between ancient and modern history. There is certainly a cottage industry in claiming that ancient history is about facts.


There are factions that would deny the right to publicly deny that Jesus existed under the rubric of "blasphemy."

Cito di Pense wrote:

That, of course, leads to the whole kerfuffle about whether a 'fact' is something that most people take for granted. Otherwise, you're in the philosophy forums, filosofeazing. Funny, seeing a search for a standard relative to which to mark factuality, from people who have never seen the working side of a laboratory door. I'm not saying that only laboratory data passes a test, but clearly one needs to consider the kinds of confidence one wishes to express.


The point is that the lawfulness of an expression of opinion ought not be based on whether it is persuasively proven. The weight to be given to an asserted fact ought to be vetted in the crucible of free thought. There is no bureau or board that ought to be deciding these issues.

Cito di Pense wrote:

That's the primary basis of my objection to such laws.


Cue the whole song and dance about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, when there is, in fact, no fire. In court, you don't have much of a shot at re-defining 'fire'. Three cheers for anyone who thinks that holocaust denial is anything but agitation, and makes exceptions in freedoms of expression.


If it's agitation, then all the more reason for it to be left free.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#220  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 03, 2013 3:22 pm

horacerumpole wrote:There are factions that would deny the right to publicly deny that Jesus existed under the rubric of "blasphemy."


That's ground apes for you. May your confidence in 'rationality' as a cure for ground-ape tribalism sustain you in these dark and difficult days.

horacerumpole wrote:The point is that the lawfulness of an expression of opinion ought not be based on whether it is persuasively proven. The weight to be given to an asserted fact ought to be vetted in the crucible of free thought. There is no bureau or board that ought to be deciding these issues.


May your confidence in the robustness of 'rational discourse' of ground apes sustain you in these dark and difficult days. I may suspect that you have never seen the business side of a laboratory door, in order to locate a standard for what constitutes 'rational discourse'. Enlightenment thinkers did not manage to get there. You see where the simulacrum of rational discourse gets you in this thread.

horacerumpole wrote:If it's agitation, then all the more reason for it to be left free.


I feel confident that if we saw your argument for that, it would be circular. You're defending liberty without any proposed mechanism for how it works, a defense of Enlightenment philosophy without any examination of the fallout from the excesses of it in 19th Century romanticism, for example. You might say that, without science, these are two sides of the same coin.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30753
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to History

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest